Mulroney on Harper

[On Guard for Thee]

No you don't. Not after the 2017/18 period. I can't make it any clearer than that.

[Bryan]

No you don't. Not after the 2017/18 period. I can't make it any clearer than that.

You absolutely do. In 2018, you get all of the money you got in 2017, plus an additional 3%. In 2019, you get all of the money you got in 2018, plus another additional 3%.

[On Guard for Thee]

I suggest you go back and read the link Waldo posted. It's all explained in there. I know it's a bit complicated but if you study it you will see the 6%/year Paul Martin provided goes away---completely away.

[Bryan]

I suggest you go back and read the link Waldo posted. It's all explained in there. I know it's a bit complicated but if you study it you will see the 6%/year Paul Martin provided goes away---completely away.

The rate of increase slows down. but it still continues to increase. More is still more. What is the part that you are not understanding?

[On Guard for Thee]

It certainly does slow down. So apprently you are starting to GET IT? It could slow down as far as to 3% from 6%. That's a big slowdown when you are talking the relatively large numbers of xfer's they apply to.

[Bryan]

It certainly does slow down. So apprently you are starting to GET IT? It could slow down as far as to 3% from 6%. That's a big slowdown when you are talking the relatively large numbers of xfer's they apply to.

You're saying the same thing I am now, which is a marked difference from your position just a few pages back when you said this:

Harper is cutting funding to healthcare and dumping it on the provinces.

So at least we are in agreement now, Harper is not cutting any funding for healthcare. He's still increasing it, just not as much as some would like. More is still more.

[On Guard for Thee]

Here it is put as simply as I can. When 2017 rolls around, the guaranteed 6% annual increase brought in by Martin goes away. Then Harper's deal kicks in which ties healthcare funding to provincial gdp. Keep in mind now, the 6% is gone OK. Now if the province you happen to be in falls below 3% gdp, then you will still get 3%. Now that's about half of 6% which is what you would have under the Marin plan. I can't make it any simpler.

[Bryan]

Yes, the rate of increase slows, that's correct. The actual dollar amount of money each year is still more than the last.

[Bob Macadoo]

Yes, the rate of increase slows, that's correct. The actual dollar amount of money each year is still more than the last.

Wow funding increases...thats so generous....considering the gross amount of taxes taken from me goes up too. So if the Cdn GDP > 3% can I keep half my taxes? No?

So does the 3% cover inflation/population increase/capital investment?

[Smallc]

It's not based on provincial GDP. I've seen nothing that indicates that. It's based on nationa GDP divided by population per province.

[cybercoma]

I think 3% is less than 6% but let me think about it a bit and I'll get back.

And 3% is more than -3%.

[cybercoma]

Here it is put as simply as I can. When 2017 rolls around, the guaranteed 6% annual increase brought in by Martin goes away. Then Harper's deal kicks in which ties healthcare funding to provincial gdp. Keep in mind now, the 6% is gone OK. Now if the province you happen to be in falls below 3% gdp, then you will still get 3%. Now that's about half of 6% which is what you would have under the Marin plan. I can't make it any simpler.

You need to stop and listen to what people are saying to you. They're trying to tell you that there is still an increase. You said earlier that there will be no increase. That's wrong. There is an increase and it's tied to GDP (according to you); you're using 3% as the figure so we'll stick with that. So the provinces are getting a 3% raise instead of a 6% raise. It's a lower raise, but it's still 3% more than they had the previous year. It's still a raise. It's still more money. It's not as much more, but it's still more.

Now the real issue is that 6% upon 6% upon 6% is substantially more than 3% upon 3%. Certainly that money is needed as the population ages and there's higher demand for healthcare services. So it's going to come from somewhere. If the federal government doesn't transfer the funds, then the provincial governments will have to raise taxes. That's all there is to it. They're required by the CHA to meet a certain standard of care.

And another thing, I wouldn't have been surprised if Paul Martin himself would have cut back the size of the healthcare increase in the face of the 2008 recession, had he still been in power. This was never intended as a permanent increase and is precisely something they would silently roll back on the public.

So I completely disagree with rolling back the increase because we're going to end up footing that bill one way or the other. It's better to get the money from a national pool than have provinces which are already crippled trying to raise even more money (i.e., NB, NF, PE, NS). It's only fair that people who move out West for work contribute to the healthcare of their aging parents back home through their federal taxes, rather than having a workforce take off and letting their aging parents fend for themselves in their retirement in a province that's suffering from working-age-population flight. Nevertheless, I'm almost certain that Paul Martin himself would have rolled back that increase when he was faced with the worst economic recession in a generation. He was a shrewd Finance Minister, who would have never allowed the books to get as bad as they did under Stephen Harper's watch.

Edited September 12, 2014 by cybercoma

[Argus]

That would be the PM that now sit's in Ottawa, His name is Stephen Harper and his 2014 budget that will defund virtually all provinces except Alberta over the next 10 years

Drivel. There is no way to keep up with the rising requirement for health care funding. The cost is going up far faster than inflation and taking over greater and greater shares of provincial budgets. The solution is not to just keep pouring money into a black hole but to reevaluate the system and how it can be improved and made more efficient. That, however, is a big job, and would be controversial, to say the least, and require the cooperation of all the provinces. Where this government, meaning Stephen Harper, fails is in not having the courage to go through the messy business of reforming the system for fears the controversy will cost the conservatives votes.

[Argus]

Maybe we can barely regulate them like they do with food processing and railways now too. Seniors packed into for-profit "Granny Mills."

I was once in charge of paying cell phone bills for the branch. I had done it before in my previous area. There, it had involved simply paying the bills. In this new, bigger area, it involved a mass of 'oversight', including photocopying all the multi-page bills, adding in a personalized form and sending them all off to the manager of the individual who was assigned the phone. The manager would then be responsible for having the employee review the bill with them, and point out what might be private calls so the agency could be reimbursed.

It didn't take me long to realize that the oversight was tremendously wasteful of my time and tremendously wasteful of the government's money. It actually cost more to pay me to pay the bills than the bills cost on their own. Everyone thought that was interesting, even amusing, but it didn't matter. Oversight must be maintained! There is no trust here! If we don't have people watching people watching people and overseeing everything they do someone, somewhere might cheat or lie or steal! Damn the cost!

This is the mentality you seem to be evidencing.

[Argus]

Lemmee see - clearly it is increasing the payments but just not as much as Ontario would like

The provinces absolutely insist that health care is theirs to do with as they wish. They woefully mismanage it, for the most part, then blame the feds for not giving them more and more money. But with big annual increases there's no motivation for the provinces to get their act in order.

[cybercoma]

Argue all you want for cutting back the funding. It will come from somewhere. That's a given.

[On Guard for Thee]

cybercoma, on 12 Sept 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

You need to stop and listen to what people are saying to you. They're trying to tell you that there is still an increase. You said earlier that there will be no increase. That's wrong. There is an increase and it's tied to GDP (according to you); you're using 3% as the figure so we'll stick with that. So the provinces are getting a 3% raise instead of a 6% raise. It's a lower raise, but it's still 3% more than they had the previous year. It's still a raise. It's still more money. It's not as much more, but it's still more.

Now the real issue is that 6% upon 6% upon 6% is substantially more than 3% upon 3%. Certainly that money is needed as the population ages and there's higher demand for healthcare services. So it's going to come from somewhere. If the federal government doesn't transfer the funds, then the provincial governments will have to raise taxes. That's all there is to it. They're required by the CHA to meet a certain standard of care.

And another thing, I wouldn't have been surprised if Paul Martin himself would have cut back the size of the healthcare increase in the face of the 2008 recession, had he still been in power. This was never intended as a permanent increase and is precisely something they would silently roll back on the public.

So I completely disagree with rolling back the increase because we're going to end up footing that bill one way or the other. It's better to get the money from a national pool than have provinces which are already crippled trying to raise even more money (i.e., NB, NF, PE, NS). It's only fair that people who move out West for work contribute to the healthcare of their aging parents back home through their federal taxes, rather than having a workforce take off and letting their aging parents fend for themselves in their retirement in a province that's suffering from working-age-population flight. Nevertheless, I'm almost certain that Paul Martin himself would have rolled back that increase when he was faced with the worst economic recession in a generation. He was a shrewd Finance Minister, who would have never allowed the books to get as bad as they did under Stephen Harper's watch.

[On Guard for Thee]

This is becoming semantics. I understand that there will still be transfer payments from the feds to the provinces. What could easily happen is the 6% increase currently provided, could be reduced to as much as 3% based on GDP. You call it whatever you wish.

[cybercoma]

So then everyone's in agreement. Transfer payments will still be increasing year-on-year.

Edited September 12, 2014 by cybercoma

[On Guard for Thee]

I have never said otherwise.

[Bryan]

I have never said otherwise.

Come on. You did so:

Harper is cutting funding to healthcare

You now understand that is not true, which is good. But don't claim you never said it.

[Bob Macadoo]

Come on. You did so:

You now understand that is not true, which is good. But don't claim you never said it.

Don't be obtuse of course it was understood +3% > 0%, yet its a cut if +6% is the current norm and is forecast to be needed.

[On Guard for Thee]

I understand math. Taking a 6% increase and allowing it to be cut to a 3% increase is a cut to funding. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Bryan]

I understand math. Taking a 6% increase and allowing it to be cut to a 3% increase is a cut to funding. Why is that so hard to understand?

See, you SAY you understand, but you clearly are still very confused.

[On Guard for Thee]

Try looking at BM's post a couple above. Maybe that will help you.